scholarly journals Competitive Rationales: Beneath the Surface of Competitive Behavior

2021 ◽  
pp. 014920632110405
Author(s):  
Goce Andrevski ◽  
Danny Miller ◽  
Isabelle Le Breton-Miller ◽  
Walter Ferrier
Keyword(s):  
Resource Use ◽  
Competitive Dynamics ◽  
Competitive Behavior ◽  
Professional Basketball ◽  
Competitive Action ◽  
Competitive Dynamics Research ◽  
Tactical Decisions ◽  
Competitive Actions ◽  
Strategic Outcomes ◽  
Multicase Study

Competitive dynamics research has focused on studying whether rivals are able and likely to carry out competitive actions, typically by examining indirect reasons such as characteristics of the actions themselves, the firms involved, or the competitive context. We explore why rivals initiate a specific competitive action at a particular time and situation. Drawing from the philosophy of action literature, we introduce the concept of competitive rationales to examine the primary reasons that cause tactical actions. Given the rapid exchanges characterizing tactical competitive dynamics, we conducted an inductive, multicase study to explore the reasons behind over 800 discrete tactical decisions carried out by 9 professional basketball coaches during 15 basketball games. To garner insight, we develop a conceptual framework revealing their types and scope. Even during intense head-to-head rivalry, most rationales were not rivalrous but were instead organizational—to optimize resource use, strategic consistency, and reputation—or social—to manage relationships. Moreover, the three main types of rationales varied in scope, extending beyond immediate competitive situations and rivals to address longer term, strategic outcomes, and assorted stakeholders. Thus, our analysis reveals these rationales to be complex and potentially difficult for rivals to decipher. It also recasts each component of the dominant awareness-motivation-capability (AMC) model of rivalry, suggesting that awareness is challenged by subtle rationales, motivation drives not only action but also forbearance, and capability is both a requirement and product of action.

scholarly journals Toward a routine-based view of interfirm rivalry

2020 ◽  
pp. 147612702093135
Author(s):  
Jukka Luoma ◽  
Tomi Laamanen ◽  
Juha-Antti Lamberg
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Model ◽  
Competitive Dynamics ◽  
Limited Attention ◽  
Competitive Behavior ◽  
Organizational Routines ◽  
Managerial Cognition ◽  
Competitive Action ◽  
Competitive Dynamics Research ◽  
Organization Research ◽  
Interfirm Rivalry

Although organizational routines have attracted increasing attention in strategy and organization research, they have received surprisingly limited attention in competitive dynamics scholarship. Our essay seeks to advance a routine-based view of interfirm rivalry by bridging the competitive dynamics and routine literatures. We put forward a conceptual model of the routine-based view of interfirm rivalry that is centered on “competitive action routines.” The model clarifies the roles that managers play in driving a firm’s competitive behavior, challenges the assumption of routine-based rigidity in competitive behavior, and adds nuance to our understanding of managerial cognition in competitive dynamics. Moreover, the routine-based view offers new insights regarding the awareness-motivation-capability framework, and amplifies previous calls to broaden the methodological repertoire of competitive dynamics research.

The Effects of TMT Faultlines and CEO-TMT Power Disparity on Competitive Behavior and Firm Performance

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 874-914 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mengge Li ◽  
Carla D. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Firm Performance ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Competitive Behavior ◽  
Upper Echelons ◽  
Power Disparity ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Managerial Implications ◽  
Competitive Dynamics Research ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Competitive Actions

Although upper echelons scholars have drawn from the demographic faultlines concept to study top management team (TMT) subgroup dynamics, the effects of TMT faultlines on competitive behavior and performance outcomes have not been well documented. To gain greater insight, we develop a model that connects TMT faultlines, CEO-TMT power disparity, competitive behavior, and firm performance. We hypothesize that TMT faultlines and CEO-TMT power disparity jointly determine a firm’s competitive aggressiveness and simplicity, and these two competitive behaviors influence firm performance. Using a sample of 295 U.S. firms in 146 industries from 2000 to 2013, our findings indicate that (a) TMTs with strong faultlines take fewer and simpler competitive actions, and CEO-TMT power disparity further worsens the negative effect on the volume of competitive actions, and (b) fewer and simpler competitive actions benefit short-term firm performance; however, they hurt the long-term firm performance trend. These findings contribute to the upper echelons and competitive dynamics research and suggest important managerial implications.

Competitive Dynamics

Management ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Tuschke ◽  
Viktoria Judith Salomon
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Competitive Dynamics ◽  
Multimarket Contact ◽  
Michael Porter ◽  
Mutual Forbearance ◽  
Multimarket Competition ◽  
Competitive Dynamics Research ◽  
Competitive Actions

This article introduces research in competitive dynamics, a collection of work that has developed within the field of strategic management since the late 1980s. Competitive dynamics is the study of interfirm rivalry constituted of competitive actions and responses, their micro- and macro-level context as well as their antecedents and consequences (Chen and Miller 2012, cited under Reviews). Related research addresses fundamental questions such as: “Why do firms engage in competitive rivalry?” “What characterizes the competitive interaction between firms?” “How do focal firms’ competitive actions and rivals’ responses influence firm performance?” “How do contextual factors influence competitive dynamics?” Competition has long been at the center of academic debate, starting with the analysis on the functioning of economic markets and Adam Smith’s welfare competition. While this debate had traditionally been dominated by economists, scholars such as Michael Porter introduced a management perspective on competition. Within the management discipline, two conceptions of competition developed. In a more static conception based on economic theory, competition was formalized as an inherent characteristic of market structures, viewing market forces as determinants of the degree and the type of competition within an industry (Baum and Korn 1996, cited under Multimarket Contact, Multimarket Competition, and Mutual Forbearance). A second conception was motivated by Joseph Schumpeter’s concept of “creative destruction” and the Austrian school of economics (Smith, et al. 2001, cited under Reviews). This dynamic conception of competition accentuates the individual behavior of each competing firm (Baum and Korn 1996, cited under Multimarket Contact, Multimarket Competition, and Mutual Forbearance) and became known as “competitive dynamics research.” It assumes that performance differences between firms operating in the same industry are the result of competitive actions that are aimed at obtaining successive temporary advantages (Young, et al. 1996, cited under Competitive Actions: Characteristics, Drivers, and Performance Outcomes). Since the beginning of the 1990s, the competitive dynamics research program has flourished, and a large body of work has emerged within the literature on competitive strategy, consisting of several sub-streams such as competitive action and response, first-mover advantage, and multimarket competition(Ketchen, et al. 2004, cited under Reviews). Research within these sub-streams is largely unified by its reliance on a common theoretical perspective, the awareness-motivation-capability (AMC) framework (Chen 1996, cited under Awareness-Motivation-Capability Framework). Leading scholars in the field of competitive dynamics are, among others, Ming-Jer Chen, Walter J. Ferrier, Danny Miller, and Ken G. Smith.

scholarly journals Dynamics of Competitive Rivalry

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick G. Maggitti ◽  
Russell W. Coff ◽  
Donald E. Hatfield ◽  
Walter J. Ferrier
Keyword(s):  
Game Theory ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Competitive Dynamics ◽  
Competitive Behavior ◽  
Trade Magazines ◽  
Competitive Actions ◽  
Competitive Rivalry ◽  
Practical Implications

Abstract This energetic lecture consist of a paper fight and another exercise to provide background, methodology, and findings from research that has empirically examined competitive dynamics. Foundational to this stream of research are several literatures including game theory and the Structure-Conduct-Performance paradigm. Unlike these literatures, however, research in competitive dynamics directly measures and analyzes firm action and rival action using a methodology of examining competitive actions identified through a structured content analysis of newspapers and trade magazines for firms in an industry. This robust methodology has enabled better understanding of competitive dynamics and the outcomes of this rivalry. It also has very practical implications. Thus, students also do an exercise in which they analyze actual competitive data between Coke and Pepsi to illustrate differences in their competitive behavior and the strengths and weaknesses of each of their approaches.

Competitive Dynamics in Strategic Management

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Giachetti ◽  
Giovanni Battista Dagnino
Keyword(s):  
Competitive Dynamics ◽  
Integrative Model ◽  
Competitive Advantages ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Early 21St Century ◽  
Institutional Conditions ◽  
Rival Firms ◽  
Competitive Dynamics Research ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Competitive Actions

Competitive dynamics inquiry originates from a sequence of attacks and counterattacks among firms in an industry. Firms attack and respond to attacks of rivals in order to strengthen or defend their competitive position within their competitive space. Competitive dynamics research is thus centered on the analysis of how the firm’s actions affect rivals’ reactions and performance. Actually, the nature of competitive dynamics research is the open recognition that firm strategies are “dynamic”: Strategic actions initiated by one firm may trigger a series of actions among rival firms. The new competitive environment in many industries has generated the inception of furious competition, emphasizing flexibility, speed, and innovation in response to fast-changing technological and institutional conditions and temporary competitive advantages. The key constructs and the intellectual roots of competitive dynamics (i.e., Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction and industrial organization economics and related oligopoly theories) offer some practical examples of industry and firm cases where competitive dynamics have found their main applications. The relevant underpinnings of the awareness–motivation–capability (AMC) framework provide an integrative model of the key behavioral drivers that shape a competitive actions and responses framework (i.e., the factors influencing the firm’s awareness of the context; the factors inducing or impeding the motivation of firms to respond to competitors’ action; and the capability-based factors affecting the firm’s ability to undertake actions), the three key attributes (i.e., the specific actions of firms in the industry, the firm’s competitive interdependence, and the antecedents and performance implications of firms’ competitive actions and reactions), and the three main levels of analysis used in competitive dynamics literature (i.e., action-level studies, business-level studies, and corporate-level studies). Some insights regarding the relationship between dynamic competition and the sources of temporary competitive advantage, coopetition dynamics, as well as the kind of accelerated competition epitomizing early 21st-century digital dynamics settings update the traditional competitive dynamics flavor, as they are connected with firms’ strategic interaction and the pursuit of temporary advantages.

scholarly journals Dynamics on the Boston Consulting Group's planning matrices

1985 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-115
Author(s):  
C. G. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Growth Rate ◽  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Strategic Thinking ◽  
Competitive Dynamics ◽  
Strategic Positioning ◽  
Gain Matrix ◽  
Competitive Action

Strategies based on the growth share matrix as a resource allocation tool require that broad categories of businesses are either funded, milked, or divested depending on their strategic positioning on the portfolio chart. Dynamics on the chart are important and this article explores the implications of changing positions of the businesses concerned using the growth gain matrix. The little-used technique of frontier curves, which relates growth rate to cash usage, is elucidated. Because management cannot act in a vacuum and competitive action is inevitable, a checklist for competitive profiling is provided. Competitive dynamics on the growth share matrix are explored least the unwary fall into the trap of conventional strategic thinking.

Too much of a good thing? An assessment of the effects of competitive and cooperative action repertoires on firm performance

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Turner ◽  
Matthew C. Harris ◽  
T. Russell Crook ◽  
Annette L. Ranft
Keyword(s):  
Firm Performance ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Structural Determinants ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cooperative Action ◽  
Competitive Action ◽  
Diminishing Returns ◽  
Repertoire Diversity ◽  
Competitive Actions

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to integrate research on competitive and cooperative repertoires and to simultaneously assess the direct, indirect and curvilinear effects of competitive and cooperative action repertoires in relation to firm performance.Design/methodology/approachThe analyses are conducted using a longitudinal dual-industry sample of publicly traded firms, including over 6,500 competitive actions and 750 cooperative actions. The authors use fixed effects (FE) regression models to test the diminishing returns of action volume on firm performance as well as the moderating effects of action diversity.FindingsThe results suggest that increasing competitive and cooperative actions yields diminishing returns in relation to firm performance. Furthermore, in the context of competitive action repertoire diversity, increased diversity magnifies the diminishing returns of competitive action volume on firm performance.Originality/valueThe study provides a firm-level conceptualization of overall competitive and cooperative repertoires to extend the literature on competition and cooperation beyond dyadic interactions or structural determinants of competitive and cooperative actions.

Regulation and strategic group dynamics of the Nigerian telecommunications industry

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-232
Author(s):  
Olawale Oladipo Adejuwon
Keyword(s):  
Firm Performance ◽  
Group Dynamics ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Telecommunications Industry ◽  
Competitive Behavior ◽  
Strategic Groups ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Strategic Group ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Competitive Actions

Purpose – In order to achieve a desirable level of market efficiency, regulators need to identify the strategic groups within an industry and understand the way the constituent groups relate to one another. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – In the current study, factors that may lead to strategic group formation were developed and used as clustering variables in a k-means cluster statistical analysis to categorize the firms into strategic groups. The factors used are entry costs, timing of entry, technology type and scope of operations. In addition, the number and type of competitive actions employed by the firms in the industry were identified by structured content analysis of a public source. The competitive actions were used to examine the dynamics of the resulting groups within the context of competitive behavior, resource and scope commitments and corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions. In addition, χ2 analysis was employed to ascertain the likelihood that actions of a firm will be responded to by firms from the same group or from outside the group. Findings – License fees was found to be the most significant clustering variable. The study also showed that groups with significantly higher license fees carried out considerably more competitive actions, had higher resource and scope commitments and executed more CSR actions. In addition, the study revealed significantly more competition within strategic groups than between groups. Research limitations/implications – The absence of financial records for firms in the sample necessitated the use of CSR activity as a measure of firm performance. Some empirical studies have shown strong links between CSR and firm performance. Practical implications – The study revealed high mobility barriers which prevent ease of movement of firms in the industry from one strategic group to the other. Therefore regulators who wish to promote competition must do so by identifying the strategic groups with significant market power and permitting entry not by lowering entry barriers but by allowing the entry of firms with proven resources similar to the firms in those groups and to stipulate similar commitments in entry conditions. The results also offer management practitioners an insight into competitive behavior in the industry. Originality/value – The study utilized a unique data set (competitive actions of firms in the Nigerian Telecommunications industry as reported in the media) in contributing to empirical studies on competitive dynamics and strategic group literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document